(February
23, 2004) To
those of us who remember the early 1980s, the situation in Iran feels like
history we've already lived through. Back then many of us
thought that the Eastern Bloc was as strong as it ever was in dedication
to the communist cause. It wasn't until the Solidarity movement in Poland
that
some of us realized that the east resembled those Soviet housing complexes
built in the 1950s across eastern Europe: Drab though solid looking from
afar, but in an awful state of repair when you got close.

Iran is today's Poland, except instead of blue-collar shipyard workers demanding
freedom, we have students and politicians facing the guns of a regime. Like
their predecessors in Poland, these Iranians refuse to be brushed aside with
decade old promises of reform. They are shedding their blood in the streets
daily in confrontations with Iranian security forces. Untold numbers suffer
in prison, often tortured for challenging the government.

The response from the west has been, to say the least, disheartening -- particularly
the United States. The Bush administration's foreign policy, influenced by
philosopher Leo Strauss, has been marked by a different concern than we are
used to seeing. Rather than pursue the cynical realpolitik of the past, the
administration has injected the issue of morality in its decision making. Yet
when it comes to Iran the administration seems unable, or unwilling, to craft
policy to act in a decisive manner.

There are those who argue that containment is the wisest policy to pursue.
It in theory allows us to constrain the actions of Iran through tools like
sanctions. Unfortunately, sanctions inevitably weaken and the political dynamics
of the Middle East make them largely ineffective. A realistic example of the
power of sanctions is North Korea. Despite a policy of containment instituted
by former U.S. President Bill Clinton, North Korea has continued its nuclear
weapons program, tested increasingly capable ballistic missiles and relied
on illegal transfers of nuclear technology.

The second course of action often proscribed is that of détente, or
engagement. Although détente was hailed in the 1970s thanks to the work
of Henry Kissinger improving relations between the United States and the Soviet
Union, several ethical issues immediately make themselves known. By engaging
the Soviet Union, the United States effectively legitimized a tyrannical government
that murdered tens of millions of its own citizens. It's hard to believe that
a thawing of relations between the United States and Iran would stop that country's
funding of international terrorism or its covert nuclear weapons program. It
also makes a mockery of the brave Iranians trying to bring an end to their
enslaving tyranny.

The only moral course of action is to directly confront the government of
Iran, much as the United States did with Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean
an invasion, though as a tyranny Iran has no claim to sovereignty. Along with
openly allying ourselves with Iranian dissidents and placing pressure on the
government, it means the little things that the Reagan administration did for
Polish dissidents. We could provide the pro-democracy underground with communications
equipment and computers. We can get news out of Iran and then rebroadcast it
into the country so that all Iranians are aware of what's happening. We can
assist organizations, such as an exile in government, which can act as the
voice of Iranians to the rest of the world.

Two decades ago we realized the morality of direct action against the Soviet
Union and its satellites. We realized that the policy of containment failed
to stop their malevolent ways and later détente merely rewarded their
actions with seal of legitimacy. It's not often that we can take direct lessons
from the past but this one time that we can. It is time for the Bush administration
and the rest of the free world to declare the Iranian regime for what it is
and to act openly against it. The dissidents in Iran deserve from the West
at least as much help as those brave souls in Poland did.

It's
time to do something about North Korea

By Steven Martinovich

February
9, 2004 - During a documentary that aired last week on Canada's History Channel,
an elderly German Jew was interviewed about his experiences during the Holocaust.
He recounted
the panic at the railway station as he and his fellow Jews were herded onto
railcars for their voyage to the east, ostensibly to work in labor camps. During
a brief stopover at another station, on their way to what turned out to be
Dachau, he remembered those trapped in the cars crying out for water. The reply
from the railway workers astonished him. In response one shouted, "Haven't
they killed all you Jews yet?"

With that one response he realized that even if all Germans didn't consciously
know that Jews were being slaughtered by the millions, some did know and did
nothing. A similar story is being played out today. Tens of thousands of men,
women and children are being murdered in concentration camps -- this time with
many in the world knowing the truth -- and yet nothing is being done.

Last Sunday a documentary aired on the BBC which reported on the concentration
camps of North Korea. In a chilling reminder of what occurred at places like
Dachau, a former camp administrator told of entire families being gassed in
chambers to test the efficacy of chemical weapons. Reports have estimated that
at least 200 000 North Koreans are being held in 12 concentration camps where
untold numbers have died due to forced labour, experimentation and outright
murder.

The worldwide response to these horrific crimes has been disheartening. Earlier
this week U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to journalists about North
Korea's alleged nuclear weapons program and made no mention about the concentration
camps. In South Korea, a spokesman has previously stated that his government
was doubtful of their existence.

It's tempting to argue that this merely another failure of liberal internationalism
to deal with nations like North Korea but in fairness organizations like the
United Nations weren't created to deal with these situations. Like the League
of Nations before it, the United Nations is predicated on the principle that
the problems it would be forced to tackle would see rational players on all
sides. North Korea clearly isn't governed by a rational group of people. Thanks
as well to the mess over Iraq it's unlikely that any multilateral course of
action will be proposed to resolve the situation.

That rabidly totalitarian North Korea is a danger to its own citizens and
to others hopefully isn't in question. Its hostile actions against its neighbours
are regular and likely portents of things to come. Its declaration that it
needs nuclear weapons to deter a potential conflict with the United States
makes a mockery of its claims that its nuclear program is designed to produce
electricity for civilian needs. Half the 22 million people of North Korea are
malnourished even while Pyongyang pumps ever more resources into its million-man
army. North Korea's work on intercontinental ballistic missiles not only threatens
our allies South Korea and Japan, but also all of North America.

Most of these things individually do not necessarily make a case for a more
confrontational approach to North Korea. Taken as a whole, however, they create
a powerful moral argument for abandoning U.S. President George W. Bush's policy
of containment or pursuing it in tandem with policies designed to destabilize
Kim's regime. While opponents of a more aggressive policy could argue that
whoever replaces Kim might not be better, it's also quite safe to argue that
it's doubtful they would be any worse, especially from the perspective of those
in the concentration camps.

It must be noted, for those internationalists concerned about these sorts
of things, that because of North Korea is essentially a gang scaled up to the
size of a state, it does not have the defense of sovereignty. A moral nation
has a right to its sovereignty and has the right to demand other nations respect
that sovereignty. North Korea, because it uses its monopoly on violence against
its own citizens, does not have that right and is not a sovereign nation. Other
nations have a moral right to depose its Stalinist dictatorship, whether multilaterally
or unilaterally.

Some may decry this as neo-conservative adventurism but the fact is that North
Korea must be dealt with and the regime of Kim Jong-Il must be removed. This
should be done in partnership with China who must be just as concerned about
having a highly unpredictable rogue state on its border as we are about future
ballistic threats. But this isn't just about protecting us; it's about saving
the people of North Korea from a murderous gang. It's about sparing our children
and grandchildren the same question that German children and grandchildren
asked: If you knew, why didn't you do anything?